This fall, science writers have made sport of yet another instance of bad neuroscience. The culprit this time is Naomi Wolf; her new book, “Vagina,” has been roundly drubbed for misrepresenting the brain and neurochemicals like dopamine and oxytocin.

Earlier in the year, Chris Mooney raised similar ire with the book “The Republican Brain,” which claims that Republicans are genetically different from — and, many readers deduced, lesser to — Democrats. “If Mooney’s argument sounds familiar to you, it should,” scoffed two science writers. “It’s called ‘eugenics,’ and it was based on the belief that some humans are genetically inferior.”

Sharp words from disapproving science writers are but the tip of the hippocampus: today’s pop neuroscience, coarsened for mass audiences, is under a much larger attack.

Meet the “neuro doubters.” The neuro doubter may like neuroscience but does not like what he or she considers its bastardization by glib, sometimes ill-informed, popularizers.

In the days, weeks, and years following traumatic events from combat to spinal-cord injuries, most individuals respond with resilience and do not go on to develop PTSD, notes APS Fellow George A. Bonanno. Bonanno joins APS James McKeen Cattell Fellow Ian J. Deary, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Emily Butler, and Robert N. Singer for a cross-cutting theme program on how memory, relationships, and even IQ can affect people across different periods of their lifespans — from milliseconds to decades.

Poverty, wealth, and their cognitive, emotional, and neurochemical consequences dominated the discussion in the opening integrative science symposium at ICPS. Moderated by Daniel Cervone, who co-chairs the program committee for […]